![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Fascism is not actually a general term. It refers to a specific movement in Italy in the interwar period. Because of this, the terms Fascism and Fascist are proper nouns, and are always capitalized. I'm not sure how else to deal with a long article that has a completely wrong scope. Generalcp702 15:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh. Thanks for telling me that. Generalcp702 23:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
This was added, I think by Joe Carson after the comparing fascism to socialism discussion. It seems a little strong, especially considering the minority viewpoint involved. Shall we remove it? Felix-felix 14:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
As I already said, according to Roger Griffin, who is recognized as a major mainstream scholar of fascism even by Cberlet, scholars disagree over how to define the basic elements of fascism but many scholars agree that all forms of fascism have three common features: anticonservatism, a myth of ethnic or national renewal, and a conception of a nation in crisis. So either anticonservatism must be there or none of the other elements should be listed. -- Vision Thing -- 20:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
<-----Vision Thing, I reverted that term because I also thought it was nonsense. It's certainly true that fascism goes far beyond conservatism, but it's also the case that fascism has a good deal in common with conservatism, especially in regard to things like morality, patriotism, etc. By what criteria can it possibly be considered oppositional? Can you please cite and quote for us the actual passages from serious scholars which you contend bear out this argument? Cgingold 15:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Stanley Payne's definition from Fascism: Comparison and Definition:
A. The Fascist Negations:
(though with the understanding that fascist groups were willing to undertake temporary alliances with groups from any other sector, most commonly with the right)
B. Ideology and Goals:
C. Style and Organization:
According to Roger Griffin in The palingenetic core of generic fascist ideology: The broad area of scholarly consensus which now exists, admittedly one with highly fuzzy boundaries, is that: fascism is best approached as a genuinely revolutionary, trans-class form of anti-liberal, and in the last analysis, anticonservative nationalism.
The same thought is repeated in his article Fascism for encyclopedia Encarta: Beginning in the 1970s, some historians and political scientists began to develop a broader definition of fascism, and by the 1990s many scholars had embraced this approach. This new approach emphasizes the ways in which fascist movements attempt revolutionary change and their central focus on popularizing myths of national or ethnic renewal. Seen from this perspective, all forms of fascism have three common features: anticonservatism, a myth of ethnic or national renewal, and a conception of a nation in crisis. In this article it can also be seen on what he thinks when he talks about anticonservatism.
What I find troubling is that Cberlet, since Fascism is one of his areas of study, must have known for this view and its acceptance in the mainstream circles. Even one writer from his Political Research Associates in the article What is Fascism? admits: Fascism is hostile to Marxism, liberalism, and conservatism. But instead of saying this clear Cberlet goes from page to page ranting about my "right-wing POV". -- Vision Thing -- 12:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
In terms of the anti-conservatism of fascism, I think in such contexts what is meant by "conservatism" is the traditional 19th/early 20th century variety - associated with the monarchy, the established church, and the traditional aristocracy; opposed to representative institutions and popular sovereignty; respectful of traditional values and, especially, of traditional authority. Fascists often mocked traditional conservative parties as tools of the old aristocracy, while they (or so they claimed) represented the true national impulses of the real people. Traditional conservatism, like 19th century liberalism, but to an even greater extent, was highly elitist, while fascism has always been largely based on crude populism. On the other hand, it's also true that some quasi-fascist movements have certainly been more friendly to traditional conservative types than, say, the Nazis were. The Action Française is a good example - it attached traditional monarchism to various ideas that were much closer to those of traditional fascism. The same can be said of, say, Franco's regime in Spain, or the clerical dictatorships of Salazar in Portugal and Dollfuss/Schuschnigg in Austria. But these aren't generally considered to be truly fascist movements or regimes, but rather hybrids, who took up some aspects of fascism, but also incorporated strong helpings of traditional conservatism. The DNVP under the leadership of Alfred Hugenberg can be seen in a similar light - and they were pilloried as tools of the old Prussian aristocracy by the Nazis. So, anyway, fascism is in some ways anti-conservative, but only in a few very specific senses. While the anti-liberalism of fascism is clear and intuitive enough, the anti-conservatism is a lot more complicated, and can be misleading if laid out without any explanation. john k 17:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Should this not be mentioned in the introduction? (A bit more relevant than the spurious comparisons to socialism or definition stretching anti-conservatism.) Whaddya reckon? Felix-felix 09:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
SwitChar says above that "corporatism, to some people, seems at odds with right-wing laissez-faire ideology." It is worth noting that traditionally, there has never been any particular association of laissez faire with the political right. Traditional conservatives in the 19th century thought laissez-faire was immoral and symptomatic of godless liberalism. It was generally liberals, who were, at worst, in the center of the political spectrum in the 19th century, if not the left, who opened up markets, ended monopolies, and that kind of thing. The right used to be about respecting traditional political authority, not any particular kind of economic views at all. We mustn't confuse the present-day center right with the right wing more broadly. It is exactly out of such confusion that the odd idea that fascism is left wing arises. john k 16:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
To my knowledge, the term "far right" was designed so as to refer by definition to fascism and other extreme nationalistic movements. I have never heard anyone use "far right" to refer to anything other than extreme nationalism. "Right-wing" may be a vague and contested term, but "far right" is not. -- Nikodemos 23:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I still really think the intro should mention that fascism is commonly seen as far right, that is contested, a couple of free-market capitalists claim it is left-wing, some people think it is a third way, all this "left" and "right" business concerning fascism is still controversial. Is there really a problem with that? ~ Switch t 16:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to note that Jkelly is deleting cited information from maintream sources. The information is that "collectivism" is a part of fascism, in the intro. Collectivism, in political philosophy, refers to philosophy that places that goals of a state or race above the individual. Not only do scholars of political philosophy note that collectivism is a part of fascism, but so do the fascists themselves, such as Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile. Deleting this cited information is disruptive and should be stopped. Anarcho-capitalism 21:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe the introduction should contain only the uncontroversial aspects of fascism (for example, no one disputes the fact that fascism is nationalistic, militaristic and authoritarian). Collectivism certainly is a feature that has been assigned to fascism by some authors, but it is controversial. It should be discussed in the body of the article, but preferably not listed in the intro. -- Nikodemos 23:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
It's probably important to note in this article that when Mussolini was saying he was on the "Right" and at the same time saying he was against "liberalism" that back then classical liberalism was considered to be on the left. Otherwise it doesn't really make sense, because I think a lot of people today see laissez-faire as being on the right. That wasn't always the case. "Liberalism" is by definition of the Left. It's just that those that considered themselves on the left were for laissez-faire, wherease those today that consider themselves on the left or "liberal" in the U.S. are interventionists. Anarcho-capitalism 03:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Fascism is not actually a general term. It refers to a specific movement in Italy in the interwar period. Because of this, the terms Fascism and Fascist are proper nouns, and are always capitalized. I'm not sure how else to deal with a long article that has a completely wrong scope. Generalcp702 15:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh. Thanks for telling me that. Generalcp702 23:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
This was added, I think by Joe Carson after the comparing fascism to socialism discussion. It seems a little strong, especially considering the minority viewpoint involved. Shall we remove it? Felix-felix 14:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
As I already said, according to Roger Griffin, who is recognized as a major mainstream scholar of fascism even by Cberlet, scholars disagree over how to define the basic elements of fascism but many scholars agree that all forms of fascism have three common features: anticonservatism, a myth of ethnic or national renewal, and a conception of a nation in crisis. So either anticonservatism must be there or none of the other elements should be listed. -- Vision Thing -- 20:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
<-----Vision Thing, I reverted that term because I also thought it was nonsense. It's certainly true that fascism goes far beyond conservatism, but it's also the case that fascism has a good deal in common with conservatism, especially in regard to things like morality, patriotism, etc. By what criteria can it possibly be considered oppositional? Can you please cite and quote for us the actual passages from serious scholars which you contend bear out this argument? Cgingold 15:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Stanley Payne's definition from Fascism: Comparison and Definition:
A. The Fascist Negations:
(though with the understanding that fascist groups were willing to undertake temporary alliances with groups from any other sector, most commonly with the right)
B. Ideology and Goals:
C. Style and Organization:
According to Roger Griffin in The palingenetic core of generic fascist ideology: The broad area of scholarly consensus which now exists, admittedly one with highly fuzzy boundaries, is that: fascism is best approached as a genuinely revolutionary, trans-class form of anti-liberal, and in the last analysis, anticonservative nationalism.
The same thought is repeated in his article Fascism for encyclopedia Encarta: Beginning in the 1970s, some historians and political scientists began to develop a broader definition of fascism, and by the 1990s many scholars had embraced this approach. This new approach emphasizes the ways in which fascist movements attempt revolutionary change and their central focus on popularizing myths of national or ethnic renewal. Seen from this perspective, all forms of fascism have three common features: anticonservatism, a myth of ethnic or national renewal, and a conception of a nation in crisis. In this article it can also be seen on what he thinks when he talks about anticonservatism.
What I find troubling is that Cberlet, since Fascism is one of his areas of study, must have known for this view and its acceptance in the mainstream circles. Even one writer from his Political Research Associates in the article What is Fascism? admits: Fascism is hostile to Marxism, liberalism, and conservatism. But instead of saying this clear Cberlet goes from page to page ranting about my "right-wing POV". -- Vision Thing -- 12:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
In terms of the anti-conservatism of fascism, I think in such contexts what is meant by "conservatism" is the traditional 19th/early 20th century variety - associated with the monarchy, the established church, and the traditional aristocracy; opposed to representative institutions and popular sovereignty; respectful of traditional values and, especially, of traditional authority. Fascists often mocked traditional conservative parties as tools of the old aristocracy, while they (or so they claimed) represented the true national impulses of the real people. Traditional conservatism, like 19th century liberalism, but to an even greater extent, was highly elitist, while fascism has always been largely based on crude populism. On the other hand, it's also true that some quasi-fascist movements have certainly been more friendly to traditional conservative types than, say, the Nazis were. The Action Française is a good example - it attached traditional monarchism to various ideas that were much closer to those of traditional fascism. The same can be said of, say, Franco's regime in Spain, or the clerical dictatorships of Salazar in Portugal and Dollfuss/Schuschnigg in Austria. But these aren't generally considered to be truly fascist movements or regimes, but rather hybrids, who took up some aspects of fascism, but also incorporated strong helpings of traditional conservatism. The DNVP under the leadership of Alfred Hugenberg can be seen in a similar light - and they were pilloried as tools of the old Prussian aristocracy by the Nazis. So, anyway, fascism is in some ways anti-conservative, but only in a few very specific senses. While the anti-liberalism of fascism is clear and intuitive enough, the anti-conservatism is a lot more complicated, and can be misleading if laid out without any explanation. john k 17:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Should this not be mentioned in the introduction? (A bit more relevant than the spurious comparisons to socialism or definition stretching anti-conservatism.) Whaddya reckon? Felix-felix 09:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
SwitChar says above that "corporatism, to some people, seems at odds with right-wing laissez-faire ideology." It is worth noting that traditionally, there has never been any particular association of laissez faire with the political right. Traditional conservatives in the 19th century thought laissez-faire was immoral and symptomatic of godless liberalism. It was generally liberals, who were, at worst, in the center of the political spectrum in the 19th century, if not the left, who opened up markets, ended monopolies, and that kind of thing. The right used to be about respecting traditional political authority, not any particular kind of economic views at all. We mustn't confuse the present-day center right with the right wing more broadly. It is exactly out of such confusion that the odd idea that fascism is left wing arises. john k 16:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
To my knowledge, the term "far right" was designed so as to refer by definition to fascism and other extreme nationalistic movements. I have never heard anyone use "far right" to refer to anything other than extreme nationalism. "Right-wing" may be a vague and contested term, but "far right" is not. -- Nikodemos 23:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I still really think the intro should mention that fascism is commonly seen as far right, that is contested, a couple of free-market capitalists claim it is left-wing, some people think it is a third way, all this "left" and "right" business concerning fascism is still controversial. Is there really a problem with that? ~ Switch t 16:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to note that Jkelly is deleting cited information from maintream sources. The information is that "collectivism" is a part of fascism, in the intro. Collectivism, in political philosophy, refers to philosophy that places that goals of a state or race above the individual. Not only do scholars of political philosophy note that collectivism is a part of fascism, but so do the fascists themselves, such as Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile. Deleting this cited information is disruptive and should be stopped. Anarcho-capitalism 21:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe the introduction should contain only the uncontroversial aspects of fascism (for example, no one disputes the fact that fascism is nationalistic, militaristic and authoritarian). Collectivism certainly is a feature that has been assigned to fascism by some authors, but it is controversial. It should be discussed in the body of the article, but preferably not listed in the intro. -- Nikodemos 23:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
It's probably important to note in this article that when Mussolini was saying he was on the "Right" and at the same time saying he was against "liberalism" that back then classical liberalism was considered to be on the left. Otherwise it doesn't really make sense, because I think a lot of people today see laissez-faire as being on the right. That wasn't always the case. "Liberalism" is by definition of the Left. It's just that those that considered themselves on the left were for laissez-faire, wherease those today that consider themselves on the left or "liberal" in the U.S. are interventionists. Anarcho-capitalism 03:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)